- Information
- AI Chat
18th century india - assignment
BA (Hons.) History
University of Delhi
Recommended for you
Preview text
Name: Elizabeth Saji Paper: History of Indian - VI Class: II BA (hons.) History Semester: IV
HISTORY OF INDIA - VI: ASSIGNMENT
Q. Can the 18th century be characterized as a ‘Dark Age’?
18 th century India was a period that stays important in an historians gaze due to the critical transitions that took place during this period. Namely there were two such transitions which have sparked debates, they are critical as they changed the structure of power and caused important economic and social reconfigurations. Historians namely debate on three aspects of the 18th century i. the nature of change, the reasons for the decline of the Mughal state and the implications it had for the establishment of early colonial rule in India. Scholars have various interpretations to the events of the 18th century. Their views can be put into two broad categorizations:
- Traditional view (‘dark age’): this was the earliest view that held that the political collapse of the Mughal Empire in the early 18th century initiated a process of economic and social decline across India. Thereby, plunging India into a ‘dark age’ during the 18th century.
- Revisionist view: the revisionists believe that the 18th century must be understood in its own terms and not in relation to the previous era. They have studied the growth of regional polity and regional economic prosperity and challenged the ‘dark age’ view.
We shall, in this essay discuss the transitions in the polity, society and economy of the 18th century with reference to these two views of looking the period. We shall also see how over a period of time the studies regarding this period have changed and if it really was a dark age as some claim it to be.
Jadunath Sarkar, Sri Ram Sharma and Ishwari Prasad were among earliest historians who pointed out the reasons for decline of the Mughals. They usually attributed the decline to the religious and administrative policies and the character of individual rulers. While Sarkar blamed Aurangzeb’s religious policies and the Deccan campaigns for the decline and saw the peasant
rebellions as a ‘Hindu reaction’ to Aurangzeb’s Muslim orthodoxy, Sharma and Prasad held that the 18th century was a economically crisis-prone period.
The Marxist historians explained Mughal decline in material terms. Some of the arguments were related to Mughal administrative institutions like mansabs and jagirs. Satish Chandra argued that these structures were flawed and their functioning led to a fiscal crisis in the late 17th century. He believes that the few and infertile jagirs led to an increasing discrepancy in estimated revenue (jama) and actual revenue (hasil) which led to a decreased ability of state officials to collect revenue regularly, thus fuelling a fiscal crisis. Athar Ali argues that there was an economic and administrative decline as the number of nobles increased however there was a shortage of jagirs caused by expansion into less fertile tracts in the Deccan. However JF Richards based on his studies in the Deccan critiqued Ali saying that there was no shortage in the number of usable and fertile jagirs.
Another strong proponent of the ‘dark age’ theory is Irfan Habib, he argues that the Mughal administrative structure, since Akbar’s time, was highly centralised with a universal land tax, systematic revenue assessment and collection, with a share going to zamindars, as well as highly uniform revenue assignment tenures and revenue collections from far away territories of the empire. Thus Habib concludes that the administration played a dominant role in the Mughal economy. However, Habib argues that from the late 17th century a process of economic decay had set in India due to unrestricted authority of the jagirdars xwho were assigned lands for unpredictably short tenures by the emperor. Explaining this view he says there was an increased pressure for revenue by jagirdars, which led to peasant flight, peasant uprisings against the State and a breakdown in collaboration between jagirdars and zamindars, as the zamindars started to lead the peasant uprising. This led to an agrarian crisis and subsequent weakening of the political edifice. With this the zamindars emerged powerful and shaped local state formation.
With regards to trade and urbanisation Habib argued the factors that propelled trade and urbanisation during the Mughal period, such as large availability of capital, a developed banking and credit system, the large transfer of rural surplus to towns etc. were declining in the 18th century thereby causing a decline in commerce and trade. Based on the material by Francis Buchanan, Habib concludes that there was a stagnation of capital supply since the interest rates were stable. However this cannot be confirmed.
Athar Ali attributes decline of the 18th century to the cultural failure of the ruling elite to respond to superior technological and scientific advancement in Europe
PJ Marshall argues along with Bayly that the conflicts of the 18th century were exaggerated in the traditional interpretation and therfe were many region that remained unaffected despite the political turbulence in some areas of Mughal control. He says that the coastal areas were less effected production of good for export was encouraged. Bayly and Marshall propose that the 18th century was not marked by decline rather it was a period of economic re-distribution and political de-centralisation.
Among the factors for Mughal decline Muzaffar Alam critiqued Irfan Habib’s view that the zamindars led the uprisings of the oppressed peasants, which were later responsible for the state formations in the 18th century. He points out that due to caste, clan and territorial distinctions, zamindars were not unified in their rebellion against the Mughals, but were in fact at war with one another. Alam also argues for a context of local economic prosperity which led to zamindars ascendency. In his study of Awadh, he says the villages and zamindars had great availability of money. Agrarian prosperity can be seen due to brisk trade carried out by the Banjaras between Awadh and Bihar. New towns came up, indicating the expansion of trade networks.. Thus, Alam contests the economic decline model.
However, Alam’s explanation has been criticised from within the revisionist camp itself by people like John F. Richards and V Narayana Rao who points out the exclusive usage of Persian sources by Alam which may hamper the conclusions drawn, especially while studying the resistance to Mughal rule. Athar Ali critiques Alam for comparing the jamadani figures from Ain-i-Akbari to the 18th century revenue figures, as it shows rise without adjusting them to the rise in prices of the 18th century.
Other revisionists such as Ashin Das Gupta, B. Grover and Karen Leonard focus on regional shift of trade and banking institutions, which earlier studies of Habib and Ali ignored. Das Gupta argued that inland trade increased, even in a period of some decline, and corporate mercantile institutions survived. He says though former ports like Surat and Masulipatinam declined with low international trade, new colonial ports such as Madras Bombay and Calcutta rose. B. Grover looked at rural commercial production, found new provincial markets had risen to absorb rural commercial production, thus compensating the loss in foreign trade. Karen Leonard argues that merchant activity shifted from Delhi to regional territories and led to local economic buoyancy.
Frank Perlin criticises the view that political decline meant decline in economy as well. He argues that political decentralization and localization of power went hand in hand in the 18th century and witnessed in rise of new political orders which went along with socio-economic reconfigurations. This was seen in
transfer of small lordly courts and urban functions to small towns and villages in the countryside. However, Perlin has been critiqued by Athar Ali who argues that Perlin discounts the influence of the Mughal Empire on Indian society. He argues that revisionists easily dismiss the significance of the imperial economy. Perlin and other revisionists, according to Ali look at grassroots polity and local social groups alone which makes it is easy to see no decline in the economy. From the various views drawn on the 18th century we can say that there are two major views. The traditional view asserts that the period was one of decline and decay – a ‘dark age’. However this view has been criticised immensely, especially by the Revisionists who argue and contradict that despite decline of a imperial power, that is the Mughal state, the period actually witnessed growth in trade and urbanisation and a boom in sectors like the textile industry. The Revisionist studies pioneered work on regional polities, local economies and social reconfigurations. But, it is also important to note that earlier works explored the impact of Mughal decline on the 18th century and their economic data, and this is something that some revisionists tend to negate. Thus, to conclude one can see that the traditional and orientalist view point of the 18th Century in India being a ‘Dark Age’ seems a little hard to accept now. While, the country may have suffered economically in certain parts, it was more than made up by the prosperity of other regions. The ‘Revisionist’ view point of the 18th century as a critical, creative and dynamic period, which was marked by the rise of strong regional polities even as the Mughal Empire began to crumble is by far more acceptable and dominant point of view now.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bibliography:
- Seema Alavi - The Eighteenth Century in India (edited)
- Class notes
18th century india - assignment
Course: BA (Hons.) History
University: University of Delhi
This is a preview
Access to all documents
Get Unlimited Downloads
Improve your grades
